Special edition: The development undertones at the Munich Security Conference

A gruesome graph released prior to the Munich Security Conference listed 23 countries that will lose more than 1% of their national income if — despite a federal judge’s order — the USAID funding freeze lasts for a full year. Eight countries face a hit of 3% or more.

Some will have had representatives among the 200 government leaders and ministers at the first major global gathering since the Trump administration’s attempt to dismember USAID, at an event that increasingly drills into development and the climate crisis as integral aspects for achieving security.

With more than 30% of speakers hailing from the global south, would Munich witness a blowback from this assault on aid, perhaps the first green shoots of a global response to the United States’ retreat from an internationalist agenda?

Not really. Instead, the 61st Munich Security Conference will be remembered for U.S. Vice President JD Vance delighting in the disintegration of the Western alliance while — to the fury of European leaders — cheering on far-right parties, some with their roots in fascism. The plight of low-income countries was addressed, but it was the trans-Atlantic tensions that grabbed the majority of headlines. So here's some of the critical development discussions you might've missed beyond the Vance aftershocks.

You are Ghana regret it

The loudest voice was that of Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, who warned the U.S. its aid cuts will lead to a loss of influence abroad to other major powers, with the memorable phrase: “As bridges are burning, new bridges are being formed.”

Mahama set out the pain inflicted on his country, telling a side meeting Ghana has been forced to cut $156 million of spending, including on economic growth and education plans, and — “the most critical” — $78 million of health cuts, to children’s care, maternity services, HIV testing, and access to antiretroviral drugs.

However, Mahama sought to strike a positive note, arguing the awful decisions he and others are making would, in time, make Africa “more self-reliant,” boosting its food production and reducing trade barriers across the continent.

On the impact for the U.S. of its retreat on the world stage, he said: “One thing the U.S. will lose is that soft power it has wielded in the world — I mean, these are people that are grateful for the assistance they get.”

“There are many other partners. The U.S. are not our only partner. We will continue to cooperate with other countries and that’s why we have a multipolar world,” he added, without mentioning the widely predicted main beneficiary — which is, of course, China.

“As bridges are burning, new bridges are being formed. We need to look for those new bridges and link the world with those new bridges,” Mahama said.

Ghana on US aid cuts: ‘As bridges are burning, new bridges are formed’

+ Explore our dedicated page for all the latest news, in-depth analysis, and exclusive insights on the impacts of the Trump administration’s aid freeze on global development.

‘Left to fend for themselves’

Just when humanitarian agencies in famine-hit Sudan, and presumably its distressed people, believed the situation could get no more disastrous, along came the U.S. aid freeze.

Kholood Khair, founder of the Confluence Advisory think tank, said aid flows into her country had been “pitifully low” since its civil war began in April 2023, with “untold horrors” of rape, starvation, and genocide.

“Now, after the cruel deployment of the immediate freeze by the U.S. government – the largest humanitarian donor in Sudan – Sudanese have been largely left to fend for themselves,” Khair warned at a debate entitled “A Living Nightmare.”

Ted Chaiban, a deputy executive director at UNICEF, agreed the dismantling of USAID is hitting operations in Sudan, saying: “We need an acceleration of the humanitarian waivers, the return of U.S. funding to be able to support the response.”

And Filippo Grandi, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees, said some waivers were being secured, but agreed the confusion “makes the situation even more complex from the humanitarian point of view.”

Background reading: ‘The world, as a whole, has dropped the ball’ on Sudan (Pro)

Shhh!! Don’t call it climate action

The other area of U.S. backsliding is, of course, on the climate crisis. However, hope endures, according to one contributor — provided no one tells Republicans that their actions will help prevent the planet burning.

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who clearly should be president under the nominative determinism rule, argued there is “bipartisan” momentum behind a Senate bill to tax carbon imports, echoing the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee member dismissed claims of “climate imperialism” by rich nations, telling a debate, entitled “Climate Cooperation in a Heated World,” such tariffs “will be extremely good for most of the global south.”

Whitehouse pointed to solar investment in Morocco, and support for CBAM in Mozambique, arguing the bright future could be “the entire Sahel providing enormous solar power, clean power, to Europe.”

“But you have got to build the wires under the Mediterranean to get it there. And you don't get the investment without the economic reward of getting out of the tariff,” he said.

And how can this carbon tax be smuggled into a “drill, baby, drill” U.S.? Whitehouse explained: “The Republicans like to call it the ‘punish Chinese pollution fee,’ so it’s not about climate, it’s about competition. But it gets us there.”

Shhh!! Don’t call it climate action — again

This omerta on use of the “c” word in domestic U.S. political debate also reared its head as a panel wrestled with the little-known fact that more people become refugees because of devastating weather events than because of war.

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said even senators with little concern for humanitarian crises acknowledge “this is creating instability in places where American security interests are implicated.”

“I can get bipartisan support for security partnerships that also have beneficial humanitarian impacts. I can also get them to talk about extreme weather resilience, disaster preparation, and recovery — as long as I don’t use the word climate.”

After a collective wince went around the audience for the debate entitled “Navigating Climate-Induced Migration,” Schatz added sheepishly: “I know it’s goofy, I apologize for that, but whatever gets people to the place where they can deal with the reality on the ground, I’m willing to do it.”

Amy Pope, director-general of the International Organization for Migration, agreed there is widespread ignorance of how the climate crisis is weakening everyone’s security — and that this, if overcome, offered a potential way forward: “When people recognize that there are serious security implications from failing to act, then maybe we see some action.”

Safety at the table

On a similar note, food aid is not just about feeding the hungry — it’s a global national security imperative, argue Michael Werz, senior adviser for North America and multilateral affairs to the Munich Security Conference, and Amadée Mudie-Mantz, an MSC policy adviser.

“Food security demonstrates the inherent link between development and national security particularly well. Persistent food insecurity undermines stability in many contexts and can exacerbate or even lead to conflict,” they write in a Devex opinion piece. “Conversely, conflict and pervasive insecurity negatively impact food security by disrupting agriculture and food supply chains. This is exacerbated by the use of food as a weapon of war.”

They note that when calculating the costs of ad hoc emergency aid, health care, and the military to deal with the spillover effects of hunger, studies by the Food and Agriculture Organization show a benefit-cost ratio of up to 7:1 for anticipatory action interventions.

Opinion: It’s time to redefine security to include development 

+ Join us this Wednesday, Feb. 19, for a Devex Pro Briefing with Michael Werz to discuss the link between national security and global development and other takeaways from the Munich Security Conference. Save your spot now.

This event is exclusive to Devex Pro members. If you aren’t a Pro member yet, we offer a 15-day free trial for you to access all our exclusive content and events.

‘Debate me’ has its limits

The discussion on “Facing the Global Gender Backlash” may well have been a first at the Munich Security Conference — but Kosovo’s president, Vjosa Osmani, nailed perfectly why it was central to the agenda.

Osmani explained how female negotiators secure faster and more durable peace settlements — not least in her own country — but also how authoritarian leaders’ attacks on women’s rights are deliberately targeting “one of the most empowering factors towards a democracy.”

“This is not some woke agenda, this is geopolitical priority in itself,” she said, also emphasizing the economic damage to a country from oppressing women — by “leaving half of your population outside of your economic potential” — which meant “men and women, boys and girls alike, lose from not having equality.”

Sanam Naraghi Anderlini, chief executive of the Washington-based International Civil Society Action Network, revealed that several men had been asked to appear on the panel, but all had refused, suggesting sarcastically: “Maybe they had other priorities?” Osmani called the no-show “quite discouraging.”

Further reading from our Munich coverage:

• Munich diary: The latest from the jam-packed security conference. 

• Senator warns legal victory may not stop USAID restructuring plans.

• Europe feels the pressure as U.S. cuts off foreign aid.

Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.